Yup, but reposts are fine when an item hasn't had significant attention yet (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). That helps offset the random churn of /newest, which otherwise causes many good stories to fall through the cracks.
For what it's worth, Google has an office in Sydney (AFAIK this is where Google Maps was born).
Have you considered looking at a Working Holiday? This will allow you to stay and work in Australia for 1 year, 6 months per employer and can be extended to two years if you work on a farm for a little while. It's also easier to get a sponsored working visa (457, for 4 years) in Australia than in US.
The problem with big companies such as Google who have offices in Australia is that they just ignore your application or will direct you to the European recruiter.
Thank you for the info about Working Holiday, I will indeed check it out.
Google Sydney's internships are indeed primarily intended at students in Australian universities. However, if you apply for a full-time job that's specifically listed as open in Sydney, and you get it, Google will pay relocation costs:
Yeah, I can imagine that. They're probably overloaded with applications from all over the world (at any given office).
There are a lot of good tech companies in Australia! Good luck and let me know if you got any questions, I've been down here for almost 2 years on a sponsored working visa, it's lovely and not nearly as deadly as rumored :)
Snail-mail them a dead-tree cover letter and resume on good-quality, high cotton content paper.
Google's jobs site provides the postal addresses of many of their local offices. I don't know about Australia but many of their addresses are there. Also, they ran Want Ads in the San Jose Mercury News - scads of them.
I expect this is because Google doesn't work through third-party recruiters. That would cost billions, maybe tens of billions in commissions.
in you cover letter, maybe in your own handwriting on the back of the envelope, point out that you really do want to live in Australia, and hope to do so by working for the likes of Google.
How does Source and Steam fit together? Would it make sense to lower a potential fee for Steam exclusive games built on Source? Would it be "risky" trusting the same company with both the game engine and distribution?
It's really great seeing Source 2, Unreal Engine and Unity lowering the bar for game developers to deliver their products.
In isolation, I agree with you -- this is what a competitive market looks like, Unity has forced the other engine makers to become more competitive. Competition is good.
In the broader picture... I'm not sure. I keep thinking about the video game crash of '83, and how market oversaturation crippled American video game makers for years. I wonder if the constant lowering of barriers to entry isn't hastening something similar. (Probably not nearly as bad, video gaming is a lot more mature as an industry right now, but still.)
It's not a problem for consumers, but for indie game developers it may be. It's already hard enough making your money back with a 'good' game, the break even point could rise to 'great', with only 'amazing' games making decent money. Again, definitely not a problem for consumers but personally I don't want the video game industry to share the fate of the music industry.
Also, a strong presence in the dev tools arena will certainly benefit their hardware-related projects, SteamOS/box and that whole Rift coopetition thing.
> Steam recognizes the Source libraries as a distinct element
I don't think that's correct, all Source1 games include their own copy of the engine and aren't automatically updated to newer versions etc. (Valve does update them though). The engine download is only for mods and some 3rd-party games.
The games you mentioned _used_ to run on the same branch of the engine, and when that does happen you only download it once. Most shipping Source games today use distinct branches of Source. There's a Portal 2 branch, a DotA branch, a TF2 branch, a CS:GO branch, etc.